3 ms·

I think those links often miss the forest for the trees. Meat production, disregarding energy (that has to become carbon neutral anyway) and in steady state, is

I think those links often miss the forest for the trees. Meat production, disregarding energy (that has to become carbon neutral anyway) and in steady state, is carbon neutral. It might require more agricultural land, true, but equating potential one-off carbon capture of reforesting with ongoing fossil emissions is just wrong.

myshpa 3y ago
Good point. You're right that, in theory, meat production could be carbon neutral. But the real world isn't that simple. Current animal farming emits a lot of methane and nitrous oxide (N2O), both potent greenhouse gases (over 100 year period methane is 28-36 times more potent than CO2, N2O is 265-298 times more potent than CO2). Also, when we talk about reforestation for carbon capture, it's not just a one-off event. Yes, a new forest can sequester a substantial amount of CO2, especially in its early years when tree growth is fast. But as long as that forest continues to grow and mature, it's going to keep pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's an ongoing process, not just a one-time event. So when we choose to use land for farming instead of allowing it to reforest, we're not just missing out on an initial large absorption of CO2, we're also giving up all the future CO2 that those trees could have continued to sequester throughout their lives. Plus, we shouldn't forget about the carbon storage potential in the wildlife that would populate these reforested areas and in the soils those forests would help enrich and expand. Sure, we need to make our energy production carbon neutral. But it may not happen for many decades, and until then, the high energy needed for meat production and distribution is a concern.
- dgroshev 3y ago
  It is literally carbon neutral. Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state, unlike fossil fuels. Putting them in the same category is disingenuous. I don't understand your point about forests. "As long as that forest continues to grow and mature", surely that's still a one time event? There is no growing over what was previously a farm being reforested, and the "maturation" is effectively limited to soil generation (normally fractions of mms a year), which captures a tiny amount of carbon, the rest being cycled by scavenging (micro)organisms? It is, for all intents and purposes, a one time carbon capture event. The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, and again more or less constant after the first few years. "We should become vegan for a couple decades" then? I don't think it's a reasonable idea to sell to the public.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein > surely that's still a one time event Not true ... deforestation for pasture or farmland (carbon into atmosphere), cleared land doesn't store carbon as much as forest do, reforestation mean not only carbon capture while forest is growing, mature forests still serve as carbon sink, sequestration potential is not only about animals, but also vegetation and soil, which is capable of storing 3x more carbon than the atmosphere, harvested wood for architecture keeps carbon stored for decades, centuries even. It's not one time event. > The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, Not true. The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately, says study https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-approached.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap... ‘A wake-up call’: total weight of wild mammals less than 10% of humanity’s https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-up-call-total-weight-of-wild-mammals-less-than-10-of-humanitys https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-u... How restoring key wildlife species can be a game-changing climate solution https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-can-be-a-game-changing-climate-solution/ https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-... (no llm was used in production of this message)
    - dgroshev 3y ago
      > Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein It doesn't matter. If you run a fixed number of coal fired power plants for a hundred years, your hundred first year will make the climate change worse, because you added extra carbon to the atmosphere. If you run fixed amount of meat production for a hundred years, hundred first year does nothing to the climate, because the system as a whole is in a steady state (methane and NO2 are settled at their levels set by decay/production ratio and there's no new carbon added to the cycle). It is still categorically different, you're talking of one-off events vs constant in/out flows. > mature forests still serve as carbon sink The only way it can happen is if carbon gets stored somewhere. Where do you think it gets stored? In other words, for it to be true, purely from conservation of matter perspective, you should see a material difference after fully logging a hundred year forest vs a fifty year forest. It's not the volume of wood itself, it's fairly constant after a while between wildfires and rotting. It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year [0] and not all of it is carbon. Where do you think the carbon goes? > Not true. What do you mean "not true"? Here's a random article [1] estimating all wild animal biomass at 20Mt, of which more than half is water, and even if all of the rest is carbon we're talking at most 10Mt of carbon stored in all animal bodies. For comparison, total yearly CO2 emissions are over 34 billion tonnes per year. Any CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure why do you feel the need to be sarcastic about substituting LLM musings for your own thoughts, especially after saying that you don't have time to engage. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706113003601 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167... [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120

myshpa 3y ago

Good point. You're right that, in theory, meat production could be carbon neutral. But the real world isn't that simple. Current animal farming emits a lot of methane and nitrous oxide (N2O), both potent greenhouse gases (over 100 year period methane is 28-36 times more potent than CO2, N2O is 265-298 times more potent than CO2). Also, when we talk about reforestation for carbon capture, it's not just a one-off event. Yes, a new forest can sequester a substantial amount of CO2, especially in its early years when tree growth is fast. But as long as that forest continues to grow and mature, it's going to keep pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's an ongoing process, not just a one-time event. So when we choose to use land for farming instead of allowing it to reforest, we're not just missing out on an initial large absorption of CO2, we're also giving up all the future CO2 that those trees could have continued to sequester throughout their lives. Plus, we shouldn't forget about the carbon storage potential in the wildlife that would populate these reforested areas and in the soils those forests would help enrich and expand. Sure, we need to make our energy production carbon neutral. But it may not happen for many decades, and until then, the high energy needed for meat production and distribution is a concern.

dgroshev 3y ago
It is literally carbon neutral. Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state, unlike fossil fuels. Putting them in the same category is disingenuous. I don't understand your point about forests. "As long as that forest continues to grow and mature", surely that's still a one time event? There is no growing over what was previously a farm being reforested, and the "maturation" is effectively limited to soil generation (normally fractions of mms a year), which captures a tiny amount of carbon, the rest being cycled by scavenging (micro)organisms? It is, for all intents and purposes, a one time carbon capture event. The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, and again more or less constant after the first few years. "We should become vegan for a couple decades" then? I don't think it's a reasonable idea to sell to the public.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein > surely that's still a one time event Not true ... deforestation for pasture or farmland (carbon into atmosphere), cleared land doesn't store carbon as much as forest do, reforestation mean not only carbon capture while forest is growing, mature forests still serve as carbon sink, sequestration potential is not only about animals, but also vegetation and soil, which is capable of storing 3x more carbon than the atmosphere, harvested wood for architecture keeps carbon stored for decades, centuries even. It's not one time event. > The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, Not true. The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately, says study https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-approached.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap... ‘A wake-up call’: total weight of wild mammals less than 10% of humanity’s https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-up-call-total-weight-of-wild-mammals-less-than-10-of-humanitys https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-u... How restoring key wildlife species can be a game-changing climate solution https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-can-be-a-game-changing-climate-solution/ https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-... (no llm was used in production of this message)
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    > Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein It doesn't matter. If you run a fixed number of coal fired power plants for a hundred years, your hundred first year will make the climate change worse, because you added extra carbon to the atmosphere. If you run fixed amount of meat production for a hundred years, hundred first year does nothing to the climate, because the system as a whole is in a steady state (methane and NO2 are settled at their levels set by decay/production ratio and there's no new carbon added to the cycle). It is still categorically different, you're talking of one-off events vs constant in/out flows. > mature forests still serve as carbon sink The only way it can happen is if carbon gets stored somewhere. Where do you think it gets stored? In other words, for it to be true, purely from conservation of matter perspective, you should see a material difference after fully logging a hundred year forest vs a fifty year forest. It's not the volume of wood itself, it's fairly constant after a while between wildfires and rotting. It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year [0] and not all of it is carbon. Where do you think the carbon goes? > Not true. What do you mean "not true"? Here's a random article [1] estimating all wild animal biomass at 20Mt, of which more than half is water, and even if all of the rest is carbon we're talking at most 10Mt of carbon stored in all animal bodies. For comparison, total yearly CO2 emissions are over 34 billion tonnes per year. Any CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure why do you feel the need to be sarcastic about substituting LLM musings for your own thoughts, especially after saying that you don't have time to engage. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706113003601 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167... [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120